Pages

Monday, 11 May 2009

National Conversation is SNP talking to itself

Q) When is a ‘national conversation’ not a national conversation? A) When it excludes the greater part of the nation which it purports to represent.

Rather than involve itself in the Calman Commission the SNP famously set up a rival ‘National Conversation’ purportedly to canvass views on devolution and independence, directly from the people of Scotland. But it transpires the pro-Union contributions are being omitted from the online constitutional debate.

In Ireland a tactic often employed to imply that Republican and nationalist symbols are the only legitimate representations of ‘Irishness’ is to accuse unionists of ‘excluding themselves’ from the nation.

2 comments:

Secondlt the Calman commission explicitly refuses to discuss independence as one of a number of options, it's not that hard to understand why that might not be exactly inviting to a party whose core aim is Scottish Independence.

And in any event, the Scottish Government has indeed submitted information to the Calman Commission on fiscla powers and Mike Russell has signalled that he will input further but only on the basis that the Scottish Government states it's preference for normal independence.

You reference to 'unionist' posts being censored comes second via the Scotsman, via Lord Foulkes (Labour and Unionist spinner in chief) via a pensioner.

You've got to ask yourself, who contacts their MSP because they had a few posts deleted on a forum (that's if it ever actually happened)

Unlike the Calman Commission, the National Conversation is considering every opotion, to date the Calman commission have refused to recognise Independence as a legitimate option.

Firstly, the national conversation predates the Calman Commission.Ok. That’s a mistake, but largely an irrelevant one, given that it is the SNP itself which has promoted the idea that its initiative is an alternative to the ‘unacceptable’ Calman Commission.

Secondlt the Calman commission explicitly refuses to discuss independence as one of a number of options, it's not that hard to understand why that might not be exactly inviting to a party whose core aim is Scottish Independence.The Calman Commission considers the workings of devolution. The majority of Scots do not want independence, so to speculate on the workings of that option would be anti-democratic.

And in any event, the Scottish Government has indeed submitted information to the Calman Commission on fiscla powers and Mike Russell has signalled that he will input further but only on the basis that the Scottish Government states it's preference for normal independence.It has failed to take a full part in the Commission, as you have already indicated.

You've got to ask yourself, who contacts their MSP because they had a few posts deleted on a forum (that's if it ever actually happened)Someone who feels their voice is being silenced.

Unlike the Calman Commission, the National Conversation is considering every opotion, to date the Calman commission have refused to recognise Independence as a legitimate option.Because its remit is to consider devolution and its workings. The question of independence is a separate issue which depends on referenda.